Rudder Failures

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Guys I think one of the problems in communication here is that Polux is a Med sailor and Med sailors are not cruisers the way we think of cruisers in say the South Pacific. In the Med you do see lots of boats like Polux posts pic's of, deep bulb keels,double rudders and all the other high performance goodies. Most Med sailors (Except for Kenomac and his buddies) go from marina to marina with the odd night anchored out. They motor more than they sail, hence the nick name "Motorterranean".There are tons of well equipped chandeliers and workmen in every port so its a completely different environment from having no marinas in most areas and every night on the hook and long multi day passages in between ports.
You need a boat that has been time tested and something that can be easily hauled without the complications of super deep bulb keels.
The Med is an area of great wealth and many boaters there have more money tied up in a high end inflatable than half the sailing visitors have in their boat fully equipped. Before you think I'm loosing it I have seen inflatables that are well over $150,000.00 The sailors in the south Pacific have to be much more self sufficient and it pays to have a simple boat with simple systems. While the Med is indeed filled with the many examples that Polux posts you would be lucky to see even one in the South Pacific.
And as far as using any stats from the ARC remember many of those boats load up to their eye teeth with diesel and motor anytime the boat speed gets below 5 knots. So you have a new production cruiser who motors half the time compared to an older boat that sails the whole distance. Using stats from the ARC is a complete waste. Using stats from a "real race" is a different thing altogether.

Though I don't agree with you, you sounded somewhat reasonable up until that bolded part. Then you jumped back onto the Ridiculous Unicorn. I don't know where you come up with this stuff...but it's fun to watch.

Please show us the evidence for that statement.

[smackdaddy]

Back on topic - who around here has dropped your rudder for inspection in the last year or two?

I have owned my Hunter now for just over a hear and had a full pre-purchase survey with haul-out and hull/rudder soundings, and had the standing rigging replaced...but I've not yet dropped the rudder. I will do it before we head to Florida this summer.

Next.

[neilpride]

Well well, fun to sail oh yeah!! i dont see many around , 4 years agoo i see one dismasted when a couple of kids push the limits in squally weather with a asymmetrical in 30 knts close to St Lucia, apart from that i think can be a blast to sail that litle toy, fun and fast, to be honest if you want to TW in one you need to be or masochist or in a rush, or both...

And the Med, i quite agree there is diferent kind of cruisers up there, from Marina A to Marina B,, anchoring is something you can forget for a while, thats why we see each year here med cruisers after doing the ARC or solo with ridiculous undersize anchoring gear, also they dont mess around with reefs and shallow waters often, i mean is preety deep , and when is shallow or tricky is quite well charted and with the right nav markers and buoys around, i cant see that fabulous 3 meters bulb hig aspect keel doing the Bahamas o some isolated Pacific atoll or reef entrance , its a big compromise ...

[robert sailor]

Smack..turn it around then, have the older boat motoring and the newer production boat sailing...same thing, the time it takes to finish the passage is useless information if you are trying to figure out speeds in similar conditions. The ARC is a motor sailors race for what thats worth.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Smack..turn it around then, have the older boat motoring and the newer production boat sailing...same thing, the time it takes to finish the passage is useless information if you are trying to figure out speeds in similar conditions. The ARC is a motor sailors race for what thats worth.

What I took away, generally, from Pol's use of those ARC stats was the mix of boats over the years ("bluewater" vs. "production"), and how production boats were growing in number (clearly showing their ability to handle such a passage), and the related number of rudder, etc. failures across those fleets (clearly showing that these production boats were doing just fine contrary to the drone of the BWC).

As for speed, if you don't want to use the ARC references, use PHRF (triangle?). Or are you actually trying to argue that an Island Packet is ACTUALLY as fast as a Bene First?

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

Back on topic - who around here has dropped your rudder for inspection in the last year or two?

I have owned my Hunter now for just over a hear and had a full pre-purchase survey with haul-out and hull/rudder soundings, and had the standing rigging replaced...but I've not yet dropped the rudder. I will do it before we head to Florida this summer.

Next.

Ouch!! You miss the rudder droping checkpoint in a 25 years old Hunter ?
If this help, check for cracks around the shaft where the saft meet the top of the rudder , lock the Wheel hard or put your boys in the Wheel holding it hard , push the blade sideways and see if there is any play in the top of the rudder where the shaft meet the blade, next grab the bottom of the rudder and shake it to see if there is abnormal bearing play,
good idea to drill a small 5 mm pilot hole in the bottom to see if is waterlogged, if you drop the rudder, next call for a good cleaning at the rudder stock , any pin hole , crack, electrolisis or bad rust spot is suspicious.. wires quadrants and quadrant by itself need attention to, same for wires pulleys..

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by neilpride

Ouch!! You miss the rudder droping checkpoint in a 25 years old Hunter ?
If this help, check for cracks around the shaft where the saft meet the top of the rudder , lock the Wheel hard or put your boys in the Wheel holding it hard , push the blade sideways and see if there is any play in the top of the rudder where the shaft meet the blade, next grab the bottom of the rudder and shake it to see if there is abnormal bearing play,
good idea to drill a small 5 mm pilot hole in the bottom to see if is waterlogged, if you drop the rudder, next call for a good cleaning at the rudder stock , any pin hole , crack, electrolisis or bad rust spot is suspicious.. wires quadrants and quadrant by itself need attention to, same for wires pulleys..

We did the checking for play in the rudder and wheel. But we didn't drop it during the survey (they usually don't let you do invasive stuff like that in a pre-purchase survey from what I understand).

In any case, I appreciate your advice and will take it. Thanks Neil.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Fellows when Polux gives you PHRF ratings and uses them to compare offshore boat speeds in the trades make sure to turn your skeptic meter up a little. PHRF ratings are based on a triangular course and everyone knows in those races they are won and lost on the windward leg. So a racer/cruiser that can point high with a deep fin keel and tight sheeting on head sails and a big roach main is going to kick the ass of the Moody on the windward leg and it will have a rating to compensate for that rocket ship upwind performance "however" running downwind in the trades is a different game. You might just find that the Moody might be hanging right in there. Remember that when the idiots who rated the race to Hawaii out of California gave a Westsail 32 the PHRF rating it would normally get in a triangle course it kicked everyone's ass and won the event. So when folks start throwing these ratings around remember what it really means.

That is a new one Normally I hear that modern light performance boats are great dowind but that with an heavy sea upwind bla bla bla

It is the first time that I hear that a light performance boat will have any problem in beating an heavy cruiser downwind and that in fact makes no sense because modern light performance cruisers can easily go downwind at semi-planning speeds and some to full planing speeds while an heavy boat will never raise is fat ass to go faster then hull speed. I thought that was common knowledge. In fact it is upwind on heavy seas where the difference in speed between a performance cruiser and a heavy cruisers is smaller.

[sailorboy1]

Just why does it matter whether a cruiser sails most of time or motors most of the time? Don't start mistaking cruising with sailing, just because they both can be done at the same doesn't mean they have to.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

NP, I have to agree in part with this sentiment. But, people go "cruising" in the most unsuitable boats (sailing dinghies, canoes, old race boats (us) and so on) and manage to have a good time. It just doesn't fit my current definition of cruising, which includes creature comforts, lots of personal gear (actually all of our worldly possessions) and stores/fuel/water for extended periods of independence. The Pogo type vessel, while a screamer to sail, would be sorely burdened by this sort of lading, and so to me, not a cruiser.

But boy, it would be fun to sail!

Jim

But they are use by cruisers to cruise, not to race. Pogo has a line of racing boats, those are for racing. of course not the same type of cruisers as you probably but a considerable number since they have all their production (30 and 12.50) bought for more than a year and that's hard to do in a time of crisis.

The concept of those boats lies in what was learned in 30 years developing solo racing boats (Pogo was a pioneer on that). The boats are fast, easy to sail, easy to go on autopilot, very stiff and very stable. Roll much less than a more normal type of boat. You should try one of those boats before talking about it, I am sure your opinion would change...not in what regarding being for you but in what regards to be a valid cruising option to more zen sailors.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by neilpride

...
And the Med, i quite agree there is diferent kind of cruisers up there, from Marina A to Marina B,, anchoring is something you can forget for a while, thats why we see each year here med cruisers after doing the ARC or solo with ridiculous undersize anchoring gear, also they dont mess around with reefs and shallow waters often, i mean is preety deep , and when is shallow or tricky is quite well charted and with the right nav markers and buoys around, i cant see that fabulous 3 meters bulb hig aspect keel doing the Bahamas o some isolated Pacific atoll or reef entrance , its a big compromise ...

you should not talk about what you don't know. Some zones of the med are a paradise in what regards coves and places suitable for anchoring (Croatia, Greece, Turkey, Balearic Islands). That's one of the main reasons cruisers go to the med and those zones are the ones that have more boats. There are zones, like the Aegean and the Cyclades and Dodecanese islands were on anchor is normal to get some days with a F8 blowing.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

..The ARC is a motor sailors race for what thats worth.

Hum, let me see if i understand you: There are two divisions, racing where you cannot use engine and cruising where you can use the engine but where all hours are counted and registered. They have a way of discounting that on the classification of the cruiser's class. But you have not to trust that because they actually say, boat for boat, what was the diesel consumption. So what is your problem in what regards to compare boat's performance there, not one or two, but an average. They are 300, lots of boats of each type to gave some meaningful insight about each type of boat speed in what regards a cruising transat.

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by Polux

you should not talk about what you don't know. Some zones of the med are a paradise in what regards coves and places suitable for anchoring (Croatia, Greece, Turkey, Balearic Islands). That's one of the main reasons cruisers go to the med and those zones are the ones that have more boats. There are zones, like the Aegean and the Cyclades and Dodecanese islands were on anchor is normal to get some days with a F8 blowing.

You should not play the game kind of i know everything,,, sorry mate you pick in the wrong bone, i sail the med for 4 full years, and i dont mention in my previous post something like the med is unsuitable for anchoring, try next time,,,

[Polux]

Originally Posted by neilpride

You should not play the game kind of i know everything,,, sorry mate you pick in the wrong bone, i sail the med for 4 full years, and i dont mention in my previous post something like the med is unsuitable for anchoring, try next time,,,

No but you said that on the med sailors go from marina to marina and implied they don't anchor out. Most don't stay at marinas and stay on anchor. Now if you know that why you said otherwise?

[Polux]

Originally Posted by avb3

Those were exactly my thoughts. Nowhere can one find out how heavy the keel is.. which I find interesting.

You know around here we ask for a stability curve. You have to know a lot to make the evaluation of a boat stability and you cannot do it with only the boat weight and the ballast weight. You need to consider the draft (that here is very big) the CG of the keel, the hull form stability and even the way the weight is distributed on the boat.

I think I have the Pogo 30 stability curve but don't know exactly where but you can have a look at the one of the Pogo 10.50. It is similar on the shape and AVS. If I remember right the AVS on the Pogo 30 is a bit better.

As You can see it looks like the stability curve of a Catalina 42, I mean when the Pogo has the swing keel up.

The Pogo is a very fast boat and as any very fast boat that means it is a hugely stiff boat with lots of stability. That is the same as saying lots of power for sailing. As you can see it as also a very good AVS and a very good final stability. The proportion between the positive part of the curve and the negative is excellent and that means a very dificult boat to invert and while inverted an easy boat in what regards to get back to its feet.